不负证明责任当事人的事案解明义务  

On the Obligation to Explain Cases of Litigant without Burden of Proof

作　　者：庞小菊 徐英倩[2] 

机构地区：[1]岭南师范学院法政学院,广东湛江524048 [2]中国人民大学法学院,北京100872

出　　处：《国家检察官学院学报》2015年第3期115-130,175,共17页Journal of National Prosecutors College

基　　金：庞小菊主持的中国法学会部级法学研究课题"民事诉讼当事人的事案解明义务研究"〔CLS(2012)D204〕的研究成果

摘　　要：随着自由主义诉讼观向社会诉讼观的转变,不少国家都规定了不负证明责任当事人亦应承担一定的事案解明义务。但理论界存在着关于事案解明义务会破坏证明责任机制的担忧,我国长期容忍当事人隐匿证据也与对证明责任的过分强调有关。实质上,事案解明义务并不会破坏证明责任机制的作用,相反,事案解明义务有助于克服真伪不明,减轻负证明责任一方当事人的证明负担。我国的民事诉讼应更注重发现真实的价值,理性看待证明责任的作用。新《民事诉讼法解释》初步设立了当事人的出庭陈述义务和文书提出义务,但这仅是一个开始,我国应从事案解明义务的产生要件、具体形式以及违反义务的制裁效果等方面来构建合理的当事人事案解明义务体系。With the transformation of the concept of lawsuit from liberal view to social view, many countries have stipulated that parties without burden of proof should assume certain obligation to explain cases in civil litiga-tion.But there was some concerns that the obligation to explain cases would destroy the function of the mechanism of burden of proof.The long-term tolerance of the parties concealing evidence may be attribu-ted to the over emphasis of the theory of burden of proof.In fact, the obligation to explain cases would not corrode the theory of burden of proof, on the contrary, it contributes to fact finding and reduce the burden of proof of the other party.The value of truth discovering should be attached more to Chinese civil proce-dure, and the theory of burden of proof should be looked on more reasonablely.The recently enacted Inter-pretation of Civil Procedure Law has preliminary established the obligation of entering an appearance and providing documentary proof, of which is only a start.A reasonable obligation system to explain cases should be established from the following aspects, including constitutive requirements and specific forms of the obligation, the sanctions taken against if violation occurs.

关 键 词：证明责任 真伪不明 事案解明义务 发现真实 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]